‘These people want a holocaust’: pressure grows on PM for recall over Iraq

Downing Street remains resolute that there will not be a recall of Parliament over the situation in Iraq. But Conor Burns, a Tory backbencher who resigned as a ministerial aide over Lords reform, has just joined calls for a recall by writing to David Cameron warning that helping to evacuate the religious minorities at risk is not enough. His letter, seen first by Coffee House, is pretty strong stuff.

Burns tells Cameron that ‘these people want a holocaust of everyone who does not share their brutal ideology. It simply cannot be enough to try and evacuate those [ISIS] want to kill and then leave them, as the Pentagon admitted last night, undiminished to continue their terror’ and that ‘there is more that we could be exploring to deal with the problem’s source’. Arguing that it is Parliament’s job to test the government, he suggests that other options could include air strikes and arming the Kurdish regional government. He adds:

‘I believe this genocide will be looked back on by historians alongside the genocide in the Balkans in the 1990s when the West left it far too late to intervene to protect Muslims from ethnic cleansing. I hope that history will not say the same of us when Christians and other religious minorities are being treated even more brutally in Iraq today.’

Burns also tries to address what many suspect is a strong factor in David Cameron’s reluctance to bring MPs back from recess: the memory of what happened last August when Parliament voted on Syria. James wrote in a recent politics column that this was driving Number 10′s reluctance. But the letter argues:

‘It is also important that we are not diverted from a courageous course due to the understandable reaction to the vote on Syria last year. This situation in Iraq is manifestly different. The objective would be clear – to halt and then reserve the advance of this craven, ideologically-driven group of terrorist thugs. And the purpose would be moral.’

And it points to the YouGov finding, published today, that 37 per cent of people approve of the RAF taking part in airstrikes against ISIS, against 36 per cent who disapprove.

You can read his letter to the Prime Minister in full below (click on the images to view larger versions):

ISIS thumb their noses at the dithering weakness of western politicians as they fall over themselves to avoid confronting the pure evil this murderous ideology represents. Meanwhile, unhampered by such moral indecision, ISIS gets on with the business of butchery, terrorism and criminality.

We in the west need strong leaders now more than ever. We are all found wanting. And we are all in mortal danger as a result.

anyfool

Maybe he should recall parliament to organise the removal of all Muslims in this country to make room for these Christians, where is Gods Little Helper Blair when the useless money grabbing wretch is needed by his fellow Christians.
.

Bonkim

Silly proposition.

anyfool

Yes it might be, but monumental stupidity and vicious spite by Labour has put the people of this country at risk from this murderous ideology, this is being exacerbated by weak and woolly minded politicians like Cameron and Clegg lying about the serious dangers posed by these people

Bonkim

Muslims are as much threatened by ISIS as others. The vast majority being killed by ISIS are Muslims.

anyfool

Surely that should tell you what a vicious creed it is, it makes monsters of all it touches, all Muslim sects murder each other, if they ever united they would begin murdering everyone else.
There is no place for this in any civilised society, its sole driver is hate, a perfect tool for socialists, no wonder Labour is their party of choice.

CO Jones

And according to the authorities, between 500 and 1,500 of the ISIS murderers are recruited from the UK. Doesn’t that worry you at all? Or are you happy to have their like in our midst to contribute to our “vibrant cultural diversity”?

Bonkim

Best to look at solutions to eliminate this cancer and not get bogged down in scaremongering. Britain has in the past sent many mercenaries and idealists fighting various causes around the world. You don’t appear to have much of a faith on your elected leaders to work out workable strategies to overcome transient threats.

CO Jones

You are right, Bonkim, I have no faith whatsoever in either the ability or the willingness of our present leaders to even admit that there is a threat, much less deal with it.

Whether the threat is “transient” depends upon how soon and how vigourously it is dealt with: beyond a certain point, there may well be no solution.

Bonkim

If you don’t like the present democratically elected government change that in 2015 – you will not achieve ISIS’ demise by wishful thinking. If you look through history situations such as that in the Middle East, bigoted religions, and genocide have been with mankind since the beginning as also civil and military conflict of one sort or the other. the late 19th and early 20th century were one of of the most turbulent/bloody. You have been numbed into relative affluence, order and security in the latter part of the 20th century. World populations are exploding and resources running out. Communications today are at the speed of lightning and diverse, technology of war and killing too advanced. But the underlying social and economic inequalities and ideological differences sharper. The world’s economic and resource transfer systems are intricate and connected worldwide – Britain’s dependency index is over 75% which means Britain cannot shut itself and survive unlike say the US or many countries in Africa and Asia. So you may not like what there is and how politics is shaping up – but unless you have a workable alternative – have to allow the present system to juggle the various issues and come up with solutions – and nothing is fixed for ever – problems and national/international issues are always changing..

Mia Seths

Read about the Barbary wars then get back to us on the transient threat bit.

Bonkim

British Pirates and Privateers did similar things around the Caribbean intercepting Spanish gold. The Barbary Pirates were a feature of the times when those who could ventured out for treasure. The Norsemen similarly went about centuries past raiding profitable ports in Britain, Ireland and the Mediterranean. That was the way they did in history. There were Caliphates too – Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbassid and Ottoman. Imamate and Caliphate – fundamental belief in Islam. But of course will be in conflict with the rest of the world that consider them evil.

anotherjoeblogs

” Muslims are as much threatened by ISIS as others. The vast majority being killed by ISIS are Muslims. ”

Are intentionally spinning this to emphasise Muslim as the victim and not Muslim as the aggressor ?

Bonkim

Not all Muslims are evil aggressors – same as all Catholics did not engage in the Terror or Inquisition, all Arabs and Europeans engage in slavery or all Germans guilty of the Holocaust. As an atheist I think all religions are superstitions and don’t like religion – any religion but don’t consider all having faith of one sort or the other evil. If there is evil out there you will be able to fight by isolating the root causes and getting rid of the cancer rather than carrying out faith-genocide. What makes you think people – any group will not try to eliminate you in a similar manner if you went on a rampage. You need to be smart in fighting what you consider evil. Blind emotion or prejudice never won any war.

anotherjoeblogs

” Not all Muslims are evil aggressors “.
- The usual straw man. Who says that ? Many may consider the silent majority of being ‘ the tail ‘ in the ‘ tooth to tail ‘ terminology and there is lots of evidence that the peaceful minority are silent whenever there is muslim on muslim violence or muslim on non-muslim violence. Many people are asking ‘ where is the condemnation ? ‘. Having spent many years in the M.E. one gets to learn that a muslim rarely, indeed very rarely, condemns the act of a member of the ummah. It’s just a fact, an empirical fact.

Bonkim

Why should your standards be set by those that are known not to have any standards – whether Muslims (world-wide population?) condemn non-Muslim killing or not should not determine your and my standards. We do things because that is how we do things – not reciprocating sub-standard societies. You also have to contrast the wide difference in economic, and social advancement in the Mid-East and lack of education, cultural blocks, insecurity, etc, etc, to realize that you just cannot equate social behaviour. Different world.

John Gerard

“These people want a holocaust”

I suppose the Byzantine Emperor thought the same thing back in the day. And anyone else who saw the black flag of Islam coming over the horizon.

Roger Hudson

I worry we just haven’t got the firepower, the government are coy about figures but I was told our supplies of basic bombs and shells was so low that ‘Israel could blow that lot off in a couple of days’, we don’t even have much in the way of munitions factories, we buy our small arms ammo from India.

Michael Sager

Unlikely.
No Israelis in olved

Roger Hudson

Comparing this true genocide ( killing of a whole group) with Bosnia is to down -play it, if this was like Srebrenica then ISIS would be killing the men and sending women and children off to safety in trucks. Instead they are slaughtering all they can get hold of.
ISIS (or whatever they want to call themselves today) just have to be killed off, they are all men I think.

The Bellman

It is irrelevant whether 36% or even 100% of the British public are ‘in favour of’ US and/or RAF airstrikes against IS if that activity is not understood in terms of achieving our long-term interests in the region. It is classic ends, ways and means: you can’t evaluate a means unless the way it is applied is in pursuit of a coherent end.
And I doubt if many in the Cabinet *ever* give much thought to the British national interest, except in the most abstract and functionally meaningless way. Until they can, both air strikes and humanitarian relief are pure kabuki theatre.

http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

There are a few key words in that letter (from the normally idiotic Burns – it is him that supported Chavez in Venezuela, no?): he says “their brutal ideology”, more of this please, especially those that try to claim it is the/a religion of peace.

dado_trunking

I cannot quite understand how this bigoted far right loon Andrew Pierce could possibly disagree with how our very good (I must say) German-style Defence Secretary currently is in full control of the situation as it presents itself.

the viceroy’s gin

…well maybe you should query the goat, lad .

crackenthorp

Parliament does not need recalling as there is nothing we can do and rightly so, we are tired of all wars and are not interested. It is not our business and we should only be concerned if these islands are threatened.
It would help no end if the media kept their snouts out of things which do not concern us

Alexandrovich

The water is lapping around our waists and you say we should only be concerned if it reaches our lungs?

and p1ss off half the Muslims in the world. Now that sounds like a plan.

Conway

We will p155 off the muslims just by being infidels. We really do need to have a plan B because plan A (give in and pay the jazya as good little dhimmis) really is no plan at all. I am thinking more about defence at home than invading other countries, though. What is happening in the ME is a ME problem and the countries of the ME need to find their own solution. We need to be prepared for when it comes closer to home, as it surely will.

Jack

The middle east may have been troubled for centuries, but the current situation is the afterbirth of Blair’s romp over there. If you smash someone’s face in, the least you can do is provide some kind of assistance to the solution. Basic politeness, really.

Wessex Man

No worse a plan that Israel’s action are now pissing off most of the world and you are defending here there and everywhere!

Andy

The Government has left it very late to help the Yazidi and Christian people of Northern Iraq and Syria. This is a Genocide in the proper meaning of the word and has to be stopped. ISIS (or IS as they now are) need to be routed and destroyed. I am dismayed there is so little being said by the Left in this country at such plain barefaced evil. And nor is there a sound from the Muslim community.

saffrin

Who was it that supported supplying ISIS with cash and armaments when they were firing Assad’s chemical weapons at civilian areas and machine gunning women and children in Syrian town halls etc?
Answer: Western Governments and their warmongering media.

Alexsandr

which is why taking sides in the mid east is so dangerous.
Spose we had given the Syrian rebels all sorts of arms? They would now be in the hands of ISIS. That would have been clever.

fundamentallyflawed

We previously supplied Iraq (Saddam) and now have indirectly helped to supply ISIS (as the Iraq army we helped to train were surprisingly enough not fit for purpose”).

The Americans gladly supplied Al Quaeda against Russia.

These groups are not and have never been our friends and supplying arms in our supposed self-interest is a dangerous game of roulette

Mia Seths

The US armed the Mujihadeen not AQ.

Mia Seths

We supplied the FSA not ISIS. For anyone who can’t tell them apart, the FSA are the ones who today requested airstrikes on ISIS positions within Syria like the strikes the US has been conducting for the Kurds in Iraq.

Mynydd

Downing Street remains resolute that there will not be a recall of Parliament over the situation in Iraq, until Mrs Cameron allows Mr Cameron to return from his holiday.

HookesLaw

As pathetic coments go you make a pretty good one. Again.

The Masked Marvel

Obama can call in air strikes from the golf course. Why can’t Dave call them in from the breakfast table?

Inverted Meniscus

Pathetic Labour Troll.

The Masked Marvel

So, Speccie teenagers, why was it so wrong then for Cameron to want to intervene, but it’s wrong now not to? Who among you didn’t think this was going to happen?

Pootles

Because intervention in Syria would have been to support the very same Islamists who are now murdering their way through northern Iraq.

HookesLaw

No it would not. The lack of intervention then simply empowered groups like ISIS

Pootles

How? By defeating the Assad dictatorship, it would have opened the door to the Islamists – just as in Libya and Iraq.

HookesLaw

ISIS were not the only group, we could have supported the ones we favoured.

Pootles

The al Nusra Front (i.e., the Islamist freaks) quickly became the dominant group because they had access to outside funds and highly committed Islamist fighters from around the world. Like the Communist Party in Spain in 1936, which was small at the start of the civil war, its access to funds and foreign fighters enabled it to quickly become, in effect, the only game on the Republican side. The same goes for Syria – intervening there would have simply replaced Assad with the religious loonies.

Conway

The enemy of my enemy is my friend – Arab proverb. There is one common enemy and that is the infidel – us westerners.

The Masked Marvel

Alternatively, it would have been more like Libya. It’s an ugly place now, to be sure, but is there a marauding gang of nutters expanding into Algeria or Egypt now as a result of our intervention there?

Bombing Assad is not necessarily the same thing as arming these barbarians. Their reason for existing in the first place would have dried up before it got a chance to fester in to the current mess.

Pootles

It might have been, except that Libya is bordered by two functioning dictatorships with powerful, cohesive armed forces.

The Masked Marvel

Obama hadn’t completed his surrender in Iraq at the time. There was still a chance that US troops would have been able to be there to resist. ISIS didn’t exist back then, and there were other factions as well. It would have been a different situation, one where there was no impetus for jihadis to go join them, or for others to keep arming them.

Pootles

The origins of ISIS lie with Tawhid wa al-Jihad, founded in 2000 by al-Zarqawi, and active since then (despite the US killing the b*gger).

The Masked Marvel

One may just as easily say the origins lie with Bin Laden back when US infidel troops were stationed in the holy land of Mecca and Medina to enforce the no-fly zone on Sadaam.

The current manifestation is the result of a vacuum needing to be filled.

Pootles

Indeed, one might, but we’ll end up back at Sykes-Picot, or, in fact, the Arab conquests, via the Ottoman Empire, if we play that game.

the viceroy’s gin

The Syrian islamofascists received weapons and support from the Libyan islamofascists. Much of Khadaffi’s weapons went to Syria. The US diplomats killed in Benghazi were working with the CIA to arrange the transport of those weapons to Syria, but the islamofascists decided to kill them unexpectedly, as islamofascists are wont to do.

The Masked Marvel

You realize you’ve just undermined your own argument, right?

The Masked Marvel

Apologies, VG, I thought this was from Pootles. Your comment does undermine his argument.

Mia Seths

Not true. We were considering intervening on the behalf of the Free Syrian Army and were warned by their leaders that if we failed to do so the rebel forces would be overrun by AQ types. I opposed any involvement in Syria at the time but in retrospect it looks like our failure to back the FSA early on was a mistake. That and not pushing for the removal of Malaki sooner.

Pootles

How exactly would UK intervention (or even US and UK) intervention to overthrow Assad have managed to clear the field only for the FSA, and not the Islamists? Would the intervention then have moved from the air to the ground, with American and British troops fighting again, only to leave and let the Islamists return? The sad fact is that it appears that in the Arab world, a military backed secular dictator is far more preferable than the Islamists that have emerged in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and, of a different Islamic stripe, in Iran so many years ago now. I might also add on the streets of England, too.

Blindsideflanker

Cameron’s political instincts fail again. He was ging-ho for action in Syria when the people weren’t, and now is having to be dragged to Parliament when the country would support military action to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide.

fundamentallyflawed

Why do we need to get involved at all? Why not the Germans/Italians/French or even China?
The US is a military power that surpasses all others on the planet… they do not need our help on this.

The Masked Marvel

Why not the Germans/Italians/French? Because they took your attitude for the last few decades: let the Yanks handle it and protect us. What useful help could they possibly give in this situation? Presumably you won’t be complaining about Cameron emasculating the military as well.

And China? Now you’re just being silly.

fundamentallyflawed

If Cameron/Government had seen to take the lead in Iraq I would have been happy but I don’t like this idea of US leads and we follow. With the UK having done nothing before US involvement I now do not see the need to join in with the US actions either.

The Masked Marvel

Not much of a reason.

fundamentallyflawed

So you are happy to commit UK troops and resources to all areas where the US deem involvement is necessary – Iraq/Afghanistan and then sit on our hands when they do not involve. Effectively committing the UK as pawn of US Foreign policy?

Of course there is always the Europe factor as well – we are supposed to be acting as one with a combined voice on the world stage – at least that is how its sold to us

HookesLaw

Its NATO that needs to act together. The fact that we are supplying reconnaissance aircraft is no small or unimportant thing.

fundamentallyflawed

NATO is a mutual defence pact – I don’t believe Iraq is a member.

Conway

Considering that the consequences of islamic militancy are likely to spill over to NATO countries, perhaps we should be thinking ahead. We certainly should be planning ahead!

fundamentallyflawed

The consequences of Islamic Militancy are already here – what ISIS are/represent is the same aggressive strain of Islam that fuels terrorism around the globe. However bombing ISIS will not remove that threat – in fact it will probably contribute to it

Roger Hudson

Yes, the war on militant (perverted) islam is going global and we should be getting our defenses up, MI5 and SO15 should be larger than the Army Corps we used to have ready to fight in Germany in the ’80s.

RobertC

Planning is done after the event.

Roger Hudson

Defence?,its first military act was an attack against Serbia.

Roger Hudson

NATO is predicated ‘against’ Russia and its friends like Serbia.

the viceroy’s gin

Look at it this way, re Syria, UKIP pressure forced the Cameroons not to be a pawn of US foreign policy.

fundamentallyflawed

Not sure what UKIP had to do with Syria. I thought the lack of intervention was more to do with UK Labour MPs playing politics and saying one thing in private and another in the commons at voting time.

Mynydd

We have only Mr Cameron’s word for what Labour said in private, which could be just a matter of face saving. The vote was lost because; the Lib Dens and a number of Conservative back benchers votes along side Labour. It should be noted that if Mr Cameron have the majority of seat therefore Labour on its own cannot out vote the government. Put simply it was Mr Cameron’s failure that lost the vote.

fundamentallyflawed

No I don’t doubt the duplicity of Ed Miliband in anything.. I feel the man is a professional weasel. However I was questioning the impact that UKIP was supposed to have had in all of this

the viceroy’s gin

The vote was lost because theMillipedes got scared UKIP was going to strip votes over Syria, as follow on to their previous vote for the Libya disaster.

the viceroy’s gin

UKIP spoke out against the Syrian bombing, a position that was quite popular in the lands, and the Millipedes suddenly found religion and came out against it, after having previously gone along with the Libya disaster. I guess the Millipedes saw that would have UKIP stripping their votes.

Yeah, UKIP pressure forced that, no doubt. If they’d gone along, so would have Red .

HookesLaw

Its America that has the big influence in Iraq. We have seen this in the replavement of the iraqi Prime Minister.

Calls to recall parliamenmt are quite hypocritical following on from the anti Syria vote. What these are are calls from pompous people to be able to spout and grandstand. Journalist will also relish the opportunity to fill column inches as well.
I don’t recall Congress voting before Obama’s actions.

fundamentallyflawed

If this was a Christian Army killing/displacing Muslims the calls would have been even louder as well.
Congress doesn’t need to vote because the presidency is basically a dictatorship – he is head of the Armed Forces so he makes the decisions.
The Prime Minister is simply the head of a committee.

HookesLaw

A pretty simplistic view of the US constitution, not to mention the British one.
There is no need to recall Parliament to act in support of requests by the Iraqi government. The govt are acting sensibly in support of US bombing and if we think we need to do more we can do.
Calls for parliament to come back are just a load of hypocrisy.

fundamentallyflawed

Simplistic indeed but its the difference between Obama saying go and Cameron appearing to dither on holiday

Roger Hudson

I don’t think the UK has been at war since 1951, when the 1939 declaration was ended (Labour forgot to do it, even in 1948 when West Germany was formed).
We don’t seem to ‘declare a state of War ‘ these days. If we formally declared war against IS/islamic groups then all their supporters and apologists become traitors and can be dealt with.

The Masked Marvel

No, but that means only that Obama violated the law (again). That doesn’t make it right. US law is different from Britain’s. By law, only Congress can authorize war or extend military action after 60 days. Obama violated the law to bomb Libya, and because of that he had to try to get Congress to approve of action against Assad. Because he’s incapable of reaching across the aisle on anything, and had already poisoned Washington too much, he couldn’t get enough votes, backed off and pretended he didn’t really mean it (“What red line?”), and here we are.

ButcombeMan

For once, I tend to agree with you.

Cameron generally has, appalling political judgement, but in the rapidly changing situation, where assessment is still going on, there is not much parliament can be told or needs to be told, yet.

He should have no truck with those who are grandstanding.

The time will come to brief parliament, but HMG seems to be doing the right thing so far.

the viceroy’s gin

Yes, you socialists do enjoy when legislative bodies are ignored, eh laddie?

Roger Hudson

But the Germans had less need for Afghan Smack than we did.

fundamentallyflawed

I am sure the Germans have their fair share of addicts

LadyDingDong

It is always the Americans, we Brits and, surprisingly, the French who are prepared to put blood and treasure at risk for others. The rest of the Europeans just sit on their hands and do nothing. Remember, the Germans in Afghanistan? Worse than useless. It’s why we should stay out of Europe and align with the US and our Commonwealth brothers who fought at out aide against…….the treacherous Germans.

global city

Absolutely. Any other commitment is a waste of time and a drag on principle.

MrLouKnee

The US might not need our help. but our Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq do need our help from the genocide they are facing from muslim jihadist terrorists, and as a Christian country, the UK has a moral duty to act by dropping a 500lb bomb on every jihadist we can find

fundamentallyflawed

How much the UK is a Christian Country is open to much debate I fear.

Roger Hudson

How about some swaps?
I always agreed with Clark that we could have solved the Salman Rushdie problem by swapping him for Terry Waite.
Bradford full of Iraqi christians might be better………. ?

Wessex Man

An awlful lot more than you give the Uk credit for!

fundamentallyflawed

By history? Definitely. By population numbers still definitely. However the creeping spectre multi-culturism means that many of the decisions of both private business and public figures means that this majority is not reflected by the UK on a national or international stage.

Jack

Which gospel recounts Jesus’ views on 500ilb bombs?

MrLouKnee

Jesus died for our sins. 500lb bombs will die for the sins of jihadists

the viceroy’s gin

…and we must be sure to remember those martyred 500 pound bombs, inshallah.

Wessex Man

You toss pot!

you_kid

what took you so long?

the viceroy’s gin

…it didn’t take you long to become a toss pot, eh lad?

Holly

I hope you feel the same way when all those waiting in France arrive here, unhindered, un-vetted, and ALL needing somewhere to live.

fundamentallyflawed

Not sure what you mean or why that is relevant to the issue of Iraq intervention?

Roger Hudson

At least vetted for Christianity.

Roger Hudson

As NATO is just an anti-Russia alliance this middle east war will just have to be those who broke it trying to patch it up, they will probably fail.

fundamentallyflawed

I think that was the point I was making. This is what the UN is for surely?

Mia Seths

We need all the help we can get as always.

HookesLaw

The govt do not need to recall parliament to act at the request of the Iraqi govt. It has moved and deployed Tornados without the need for a parliamentary vote.
And is parliament going to vote to bomb ISIS at a time when the USA is carefully limiting its actions and might stop at any minute? We cannot add much to the available US firepower.

saffrin

Why would the British taxpayer support stopping ethnic cleansing when we have Oxfam?
If you feel so strongly, join the Iraqi army or cough-up some cash to a charity that gives a sh!t.
We’ve been sucked into other peoples wars for over two decades. We are bust, we are broke and we sure as he*l are not the World police.

Inverted Meniscus

Oxfam doesn’t give a sh*t it is far to busy campaigning for the Fascist Labour Party.

John Gerard

Pretty much it. A fine comment indeed…

you_kid

Not at all, it is a stupendous comment of enlightening clarity and simplicity.

Wessex Man

I was going to, in the light of your comments elsewhere on these going to give you a roasting verbally but what’s the point!

Mynydd

Cameron’s political instincts are limited to a photo opportunity and tomorrows headline. When it comes to personnel and solutions to problem areas his judgement is poor.The Prime Minister/Hague sent aid and supplies to the Syrian anti-government forces, some which most likely ended up with ISIS. Then Mr Cameron/Hague wanted to bomb Syria, without knowing who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. Now we know ISIS are really the bad guys. Of course these are predated by Libya, where two years after his intervention he had to send a warship to evacuate British personnel form the very people he supported.

Inverted Meniscus

Labour Troll.

Gafto

He has a point though.

Inverted Meniscus

Look, if Cameron or any other Conservative went up in a hot air balloon that troll would say he is a showoff. Should Cameron or any other Conservative refuse to go up in a hot air balloon he would call them a coward. He is an ignorant troll for the Fascist Labour Party and should be ignored.

Mynydd

You may ignore me, but, you cannot ignore the consequent of Mr Cameron’s actions in respect to Syria, and Libya. Mr Cameron/Hague